I wouldn't say it's validating, just not necessarily invalidating.

Regardless, a news organizing funded by a monarchy not exactly known for its human and civilian rights mostly like has an agenda beyond "honest journalism".

Their journalist were trained at BBC. It is funny that BBC exactly fits your definition :-)

BTW both have very high standards and make excellent journalism.

I'd like to see examples of bad Al Jazeera journalism instead of just attacks to Qatar monarchy.

>BTW both have very high standards and make excellent journalism.

With respect to everything except the middle east.

I won't deny that they have generally good coverage on many subjects, but the nuance is that they leverage / launder that credibility towards advancing the state aims of Qatar whenever needed.

And as OP mentioned, if you look up how AJ covers a topic in English and how they cover it in Arabic, it's wildly different.

As an Arabic speaker I notice higher standards in the English version of Al Jazeera, I remember a Qatari cameraman was killed in a shooting attack in Benghazi-March 12, 2011, Ali Hassan Al-Jaber, unlike the English Al Jazeera team, was not wearing any protective gear nor had he undergone any media training for covering war zones. Some interesting take on this goes like this: 'Qatar is not only a historical part of the American security and energy system, as is the case with many other countries. The issue is that, thirty years ago, Qatar went through a difficult period - a crisis of legitimacy, a coup, and a real external threat - that shaped Qatari foreign policy and made the regime understand that, in order to become useful and necessary for Washington, it needed to do “more,” to excel. From the rest of the allies in the region, and for it to have a special role that no one else can play.All Qatari policies since then, from the Al-Udeid base to relations with Israel to hosting Hamas and rapprochement with Syria, then waging war against it, all come within this framework. If you do not interpret Qatari policies within their actual historical and functional context, then you are be misled on the real purpose of Al Jazeera channel. What is interesting here is that the Qatari officials themselves do not hide these matters at all, and they publicize them at every turn and external criticism that comes their way, the latest of which is an official statement from the Qatari embassy in Washington: “We do not act on our heads. We did not host the leadership of Hamas except in response to an American request, and not only with their approval, and the same goes for relations with the Taliban, the Syrian war, and the transfer of money to Gaza was taking place with Israeli approval and under their eyes - we perform the tasks for you.” They say this to the American and Western public exclusively, and as an Arab, when you question Qatari policy and its role, you may not find a single Qatari citizen in the discussion before you. Why do you think, and within any theory of the world, might America ask Qatar to host Hamas or establish relations with Hezbollah?'

The BBC doesn't fit my definition as it's run by a democracy with a high degree of human rights and civilian freedoms.

And journalism can be technically right while still showing a very one sided view.

Not that I'm pro ban, just saying that there's a good reason to be vigilant when it comes to their news coverage and make sure it's not you're only source.

BBC has been laundering many Zaka lies in recent months

What is "Zaka" and what has BBC been saying? Have a link to what you mean?

Zaka is the Israeli first responder organization that did a lot of the work on October 7.

wahnfrieden is apparently an October 7 denier and is annoyed that the BBC does think it happened.

No, the specific atrocity stories of 40 beheaded babies that BBC repeats after it was discredited, the baby cut from a womb, and others that were admitted to be fabrications but continue to be reported from Zaka as a credible source. Don't slander me saying that I deny Oct 7 happened.

Do you have a link where the BBC repeats this? I've never heard of any of it.

Here's a recent one, which cites a discredited Zaka source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68162920

And there is plenty of reporting on the atrocity propaganda lies Zaka spread, but here is an Israeli publication's reporting: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-31/ty-article-ma...

NYT also repeated discredited lies: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...

Detractors say that discrediting Zaka propaganda is equivalent to Oct 7 denial full-stop, even though Israeli publications have also discredited their claims (I guess Haaretz must also be an Oct 7 denier) - you can be the judge of that